WOOLSTON TANNERY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11014, 29 January 1926, Page 5

WOOLSTON TANNERY

FURTHER HEARING OF EVIDENCE.

WELLINGTON, Jan. 28. At the Tanneries Commission, William George McDonald, continued his evidence with regard to the operations of the Board of Trade. He considered it was made plain that there were three conferences prior to the removal of the embargo. At one, suggestions of profiteering were made by the farmers. against the tanners and the bootmakers, principally the tanners. AVitness referred to the Board of Trade Act, 1919, which gave tho Board extremely wide powers. Suggestions of profiteering against the Woolston Tanneries were fairly frequent at that stage, but investigation revealed that there was no over-charging on the part of the company. Following the first two conferences he was of the opinion that the embargo should be retained, and that that would he done, but at the third conference, held in the Prime Minister’s room, it was evident that the Government had changed its policy with regard to the embargo, and they were bent on the removal of the embargo but were still in favor of a standardised boot. Owing to the action of tho Board, notwithstanding the removal of the embargo, boots did not go up commensurately with the price of hides. Hides advanced 100 per cent, and boots did not go up more than G 5 and two-thirds per cent. Jf there was an increase of 100 per cent, in leather, he would expect 100 per cent, increase in the price of boots. Witness expressed the opinion that no matter what course the AVoolston Tanneries followed they would have lost money. Sir J. Findlay: If Mr. Ollivier, as a business man, had agreed to carry out the scheme and had said to the Government ‘lf I lose will you indemnify me against loss,’ do yon think any responsible Minister would have agreed to do it? Witness: AVliy not, it was done in other cases.

Sir J. Findlay: Those cases were entirely different. Proceeding, witness stated that the suggestion was made by one of the Ministers that the AVoolston Tanneries should be prosecuted for profiteering, but he (witness) declined to have anything to do with a prosecution. Sir J . Findlay l Have you any record of that suggestion by Mr. 'Lee? —I did not say it was Mr. Lee. Sir J. Findlay: Have you any record from any Ministers?—No. The suggestion was made in the course of the investigation. During the cross-examination McDonald stated he was empowered to make any arrangement with Ollivier and any arrangement he made would stand. * He* wanted to make it clear lie had the assistance of many capable officers in this business. He had the wholehearted support of two other members of the Board. As far as he knew all tanners experienced a herd time owing to the renewal of the slump. Other tanneries had to come into line with AVoolston so fas as charges were concerned. If the AVoolston Tanneries had failed to carry on there would have been a shortage of New Zealand leather and there would still be importations. Other tanners had difficulty in getting hides, but not so much difficulty as AVoolston.

AVELLINGTON, Jan. 28. Before the AA'oolston Tanneries Commission Mr McDonald, continuing his evidence, said that the suggestion was mads by one of the Ministers that the Company should be prosecuted for profiteering, but witness declined. It was suggested he was the Minister, but witness declined to say. He went on to say he was practically the Board and was empowered to make any arrangement with Mr Olliver and it would stand. He had the wholehearted support of the other members of the Board. All the tanners experienced hard times, but the AVoolston Co. suffered more, as they dealt in larger quantities and had to contend with a feeling of antagonism. Opening the case for the Government, Sir J. Findlay said the withdrawal of the first claim had eased his task. He had thought that the main ground of the petitioner would be the removal of the embargo, but now he had to meet what was practically a new case. Mr Olliver would have to shorv that he had a justifiable expectation that the Government would come to his assistance and grant relief. Counsel submitted that the expectation could rot have existed in Mr Ollivier’s mind, as Mr McDonald had sworn he had offered Mr Ollivier no inducement to carry on and stabilise prices. In none of the conversations with Mr McDonald had Mr Ollivier referred' to the possibility of receiving compensation. The whole matter was a commercial one and should he regarded in a commercial manner. The Commissioner disagreed with this view to some extent. The Government might, he said, have reimposed the embargo, for instance. Sir J. Findlay said he did not intend to look on it as a business case. Mr Ollivier was not acting as a philantrophist, but from motives of commercial profit.—P.A.